Paper to be presented at the 25th Celebration Conference 2008


Copenhagen, CBS, Denmark, June 17 - 20, 2008

Joost Heijs Universidad Complutense Madrid Monica Martinez Pellitero Universidad Complutense Madrid Mikel Buesa Universidad Complutense Madrid

Abstract: The objective of this paper is to present a new methodological approach for the design of a regional innovation scoreboard. Therefore we constructed a new data base with regionalised information for the 207 regions of the EU-25 countries We construct the so called IAIF Index of Regional Innovation Capacity for 1995-2003 to rank the behaviour and capability of the European regions in the field of innovation and to analyse its evolution over time. We used initially 30 variables of the EU-25 regional innovation systems that we merged based on a factor analysis- to six composite partial factors or indexes. We think That those factors reflect better the heterogeneous concept of Innovation Systems than could do each of the individual variables. Finally we elaborated a general factor weighting the partial scores properly-. In fact we try to tackle partially three problems of the existing empirical work. First we try to create a broader database on regional innovation system, secondly we offer a scoreboard for a time span (1995-2003) which permit us to study the evolution over time and third, we try to develop a statistical method to weight the impact of the variables and the sub-indexes on the final regional innovation scoreboard.

JEL - codes: O30, -, -


1. - Introduction The objective of this paper is to present a new methodological approach for the design of a regional innovation scoreboard. As mentioned by Edquist (2005), there are scarcely any empirical research works on regional innovation systems with aggregate data at regional level. This is particularly due to the lack of regionalised statistics and sources. At the present time, there are various scattered sources of information, but there is not just one database collating data of different sorts which is available to the scientific community. This lack of indicators is one of the main biases that can be observed in the existing literature towards theoretical discussions to the detriment of the empirical studies (MacKinnon et al. 2002). Moreover, the existing studies used a static perspective instead of the development of longitudinal studies that use a process more oriented by dynamic approximation (Doloreux y Parto 2004, MacKinnon et al. 2002). The Innovation System Approach shows us that a large number of aspects influence the R&D and innovation related activities. Not only are the individual aspects of vital importance, even more important are the interaction and synergies generated between those elements. For example the data on the interaction between agents of an innovation system is difficult to get. However, in the last decade there is a clear improvement of available data in the case of the European Union and the OECD countries. The European Innovation Survey (CIS) offers data on a very broad number of aspects, especially qualitative data. 1 However the first editions do not offer data that are representative on regional level. The CIS4 is expected to provide regional data for more countries though for important countries among others for Germany, France or Hungary no regionalised data will be available. For the elaboration of this paper we constructed a new data base with regionalised information for the 207 regions of the EU-25 countries and we used this data to develop several empirical studies on regional innovation systems. In this paper we propose a method to construct the so called IAIF Index of Regional Innovation Capacity (IAIF-IRIC) for the period of 1995-2003. This index allows us to rank the behaviour and capability of the European regions in the field of innovation and to analyse its evolution over time. Only a few studies tried to develop an index of the innovation capabilities and almost all of the studies used a National level —like the Technology Achievement Index (UNDP, 2001 and Desai et al. 2002), the Technology Index (WEF, 2001); and the Indicator of Technological Capabilities (Archibugui and Coco; 2005)—, Another study for the European countries is the European Innovation Scoreboard elaborated annually for the period 2001 2006) (see European Commission, 2006, 2007). On regional level we detected only two sources of studies. On the one hand, the IAIF developed such an index for the case of Spain (Buesa et al, 2005, 2007) and Europe (Buesa/Heijs, 2007) and the MERIT Institute in Maastricht establishes, on behalf of the

This survey includes qualitative data on the innovative activities of firms, among others, on cooperation in innovation, protection mechanisms for intellectual property, objectives of innovation, its regularity, and the impact of innovation on sales or exports or barriers for innovation. Especially the data of the European Innovation Survey are not representing well the regional level.


European Commission, the European Innovation Scoreboard for EU regions for the period 2002-2006) (See among others the work of the European Commission, 2003, 2005, 2007). The successive European Innovation Scoreboards on a National level (EIS) include a broad number of variables taking into account a broad number of aspects. However, also on this national level there are problems to collect al the relevant data. It is not easy to maintain stability in the structure (the set of included variables). In the successive scoreboards for the period 2003-2006 around 12 to 28 variables were used. Moreover only 11 variables were included in all the elaborated scoreboards. The Regional Innovation System Scoreboards (RRIS scoreboards) used an even more limited number of indicators as including 13 variables in 2003 while the 2006 RISS included seven variables for 208 regions of the EU25 countries. So one of the main problems or questions related to the methodology of an index or scoreboard for regional innovation systems lies in the small number of variables used due to the lack of availability of the statistical information. A second problem is the decisions on the weight of the different aspects included in the composite indicators. We saw that the methodological changes in the European regional scoreboard implied important changes in the position or rank of some regions like Madrid or Noord-Brabant 2 . The decision to weight the relative importance of different subindices used in the existing literature is not based on a theoretical proposal however is an ad hoc decision. For example, one of the studies based on national data calculated three sub-indexes: creation of technology, technology transfer, and human capital. By doing so they leave aside two major methodological problems: First, it is necessary to calibrate and generate the subindices, conveniently weighting the included variables. Second, the adequate aggregation of those partial indexes in a single, weighted index has to be found. All studies mentioned before, use subjective criteria in doing so, considering that each sub-index has the same importance or just assigning in a discretionary way, a certain weight to each of them. As has been conveniently pointed out by Grupp and Mogee (2004), these subjective criteria are not always disinterested, as they seem to be in some cases “country friendly”, optimising the results of a certain country or region by what he calls “country-tuning”. In the IAIF index for regional innovation capability –presented in this paper- we apply a novel criterion that is based on the statistical outcome of the Factor Analysis technique. Concluding, in this paper we try to tackle partially three problems of the existing empirical work. First we try to create a broader database on regional innovation system, secondly we offer a scoreboard for a time span (1995-2003) which permit us to study the evolution over time and third, we try to develop a statistical method to weight the impact of the variables and the sub-indexes on the final regional innovation scoreboard. In the next section we will briefly revise the methodological approach of calculating regional and national innovation scoreboards or composite indicators. In section 3 we explain our own methodology based on a Factor Analysis as a previous step to calculate the IAIF index for regional innovation capability. In this section we also carry out this factor analysis. While in section four we establish –by using the obtained factors- our own regional innovation index. The fifth section offers the results of our analysis and the last one will discuss briefly the reliability of our work and the new research activities necessary for the future.

The change in the calculation of the EU- Regional innovation Score Board implied that the Comunidad de Madrid shows a drop from position 13 in 2003 to 31 in 2006. (European Commission, 2007).


Section 2 The IAIF Index of Regional Innovation Capacity: An methodological approach



The evolutionary theory underpins the heterogeneity of the innovative performance, which has to be considered as a multidimensional activity. The literature emphasizes the difficulty and the weakness of the use of individual indicators to measure the global concept of innovation, as well as patents, R&D expenditures, percentage of sales related to new products, etc. Each of those indicators –although highly correlated- gives a different view of apparently the same subject. 3 It is worthwhile treating the concept and the different elements of an innovation system as something which is not directly observable. In this case by means of a multivariate methodology and despite the statistical limitations always to be found in these topics, in this paper we elaborate and describe a series of hypothetical variables registering the most important relationships related to technological change. For the creation of “combined” indicators that reflect the different aspects of the regional innovation systems we used a factor analysis. This technique, from a set of quantitative variables, allows us to reduce the set of existing variables to a lower set of non-observable hypothetical variables, called factors, which summarise practically all the information contained in the original set. From our point of view these new synthetic variables or factors better reflect the general aspects of the regional innovation systems than could do each of the individual variables included in the factor.

2.2.- The data set A first step to elaborate the so called IAIF Index of Regional Innovation Capacity (IAIFIRIC) for the EU-25 regions is to create the corresponding data base. Therefore we collected regionalised that include initially over 100 variables. We collected data related to the regional innovation system and its national and regional environment for 206 regions of the EU-25 countries over a time span between 1995 and 2004. Although a broad number of aspects of the regional innovation systems and its environment are included for some elements we did not find any publicly available information. Among others the data on scientific and technological infrastructure, innovation policies and interaction and cooperation between the innovative agents is missing. Once we collected the data we had to limit this study to the regions of which we had the complete set of data. Therefore we used in this paper data of 166 regions of 19 countries (the EU-15 and five east European countries; see table 2; section 4). The time period is 19952003 due to the fact that for 2004 we had to estimate the information for a large number of variables. In the project we collected data about several agents of the innovation system) like (innovative) firms, universities and other public research organisations) and about the environment that influence the innovative behaviour of these agents. Below a short synthesis


For example the technological level of Spain is 45% (European Union=100) taking into account the R&D expenditures by GNP and 62 percent in the case of employment in R&D by total employment and 15% using the number of patents per capita.


is made of the information recorded by the variables used in this study in accordance with the subgroups defined (the exact variables included in the analysis are reflected in table 1). Innovating firms Input or innovative efforts of the production sector (firms) The business sector is defined from Frascati’s Manual 4 as a group of firms and institutions whose main activity is the production of goods and services for sale to the public in the market and in general, at a price linked to the economic reality of the time. Firms and even more those linked to Research and Development processes are key elements in the regional Innovation systems since they have the capacity to generate knowledge and materialised results both in products and processes. What is more, it can be stated that they are the components connecting the production and innovation systems. We included in our model the monetary and staff resources devoted to these activities. Patents and the accumulated knowledge (Pool of existing knowledge) Given the importance of knowledge in innovation systems, its aggregation is a way of quantifying the results of the processes taking place there. In this context, the indicators worked with here are those related to patents. The term patent refers to an industrial property right or invention in the technological field that has to be brand new, represent a breakthrough not evident to specialists and have an industrial application. The use of patents have several methodological implications, though are broadly used as a measure of the output of the innovation process 5 . Patents are considered as the output of the private R&D because most patents are produced by the enterprises and are near to the market. Here it could be interesting to add also information on publications. These data reflect the pool of scientific knowledge or the results of basic R&D. However, except for some countries- no regionalised data are available on this subject. Public Research System and scientific infrastructure The term scientific infrastructure refers to the group of agents and actions which impinge on the development of regional innovatory and scientific activity. We gathered data on two aspects –expenditures on R&D and Human Resources- and distinguish two analytical different areas: Public Administration and Universities. • Public Administration Resources Frascati’s Manual defines the Public Administration (abbreviated to PA) as the group of ministries, offices and other bodies supplying public services and goods which otherwise would not be profitable in the market, whilst administering public services and developing social and economic policy 6 . In developing innovation systems the PAs play a significant role in the scientific field, and proof of this is found in the centres of specialised research.

4 5

OECD (2002b-pp54-62) See for a discussion Griliches(1990) or Smith (2005:158-160) 6 OECD (2002b), p. 62


The Higher Education is defined (henceforth University) in the Frascati’s Manual as the group of Universities-faculties, higher technical schools and university schoolstechnological institutes and other postsecondary bodies, regardless of the source of their financial resources and legal status. In the definition are included research institutes, experimental stations and clinics under the direct control of Higher Education units, whether administered by them or whether they are associated with them. As already mentioned we include in our data set the R&D expenditures and the Human Resources on S&T. Regional and national innovation environment The regional and national innovation Environment is a broad concept that includes different elements impinging indirectly on the region’s own capacity in scientific, technological and innovation matters. Four aspects have been considered in this study: Accessibility or peripherability of the region, Market size and productive activity, human capital, risk capital, ICT technologies, and the level of economic freedom • Accessibility or peripherability of the region As is normally the case, accessibility to the centre differs markedly from that to the periphery. Accessibility is the main "product" of a transport system. The task of transport infrastructure is to enable spatial interaction, i.e. the mobility of persons and goods for social, cultural or economic activities. In the context of spatial development, the quality of transport infrastructure in terms of capacity, connectivity, travel speeds etc. determines the locational advantage of an area relative to other locations, Regions with better access to the locations of input materials and markets will, ceteris paribus, be more productive, more competitive and hence more successful than more remote and isolated areas (Spiekerman and Neubauer 2002). These authors estimated an index of the accessibility of the European region –based on the costs of transport by time between NUTS three regions- which will be used in our study as an indicator for the peripherability. • Market size and productive activity Market size and productive activity may be considered as one of the fundamental supports of the environment and therefore of regional innovation systems. Since important differences of size exist in the regions studied -either in population or production terms- it is important to reflect them because they may have effects on the extent of the development of systems and their working. Therefore we include here variables on the production of the region, the employment. Another important aspect of the environment of an innovation system is the living standard of the population. It is supposed that regions in which the inhabitants have a high level of income the requirements of the consumer products (on quality, technical performance, security, natural environment protection etc…) will be higher which would be a pressure to local producers to innovate, diversify and improve continuously their product range. This living standard depends also on the productivity of the production system. Therefore the level of income and productivity are included in this study as indicators of the general environment of a regional innovation system. • Human capital (Human resources in Science and Technology) 5

The existence of well prepared researchers on the labour market is a necessary condition to add human resources for Science and Technology. The information on this item, provided by EUROSTAT, is based on the definitions of human Resources made by Manuel Canberra, and implies the following conditions for them to be considered as such 7 : a) Having finished third level studies, that is graduate or equivalent-in a scientifictechnological field. b) Being employed in a technological-scientific field without meeting the previous condition, which is normally required. c) Have completed third level studies and are employed in the scientific-technological field. d) Finally, the fourth measurement is given by the total of those people who meet one requirement or another In this research the work has been carried out with the fourth type of indicator. Another factor related to the human capital (included in the IAIF innovation scoreboard) are the number of students that do advanced studies (third cycle). This information will indicate the potential future availability of human capital. • The general environment of a regional innovation system On various occasions it has been pointed out that the a regional innovation systems is not exclusive depending on itself. The national system (legal and economic aspects, social and political measures etc…) limit or facilitate the activities in its regions. Therefore it would appear logical and necessary to include variables showing the aspects of the national innovation systems themselves. The included variables in question are: 1. Index of economic freedom: This index, prepared by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, shows economic freedom in various countries via 50 independent variables subdivided into 10 general factors, that reflect the degree of economic freedom (Trade policy, Government tax levy, Government intervention in the economy, monetary policy, foreign capital inflows and investments, banking and financial activity. Wages and prices. Property rights and informal Market). The higher the mark the greater the level of interference by the Government in a country’s economy. 2. Penetration of TICs (Infostates Index) The new information and communication technologies are basic elements of what are called knowledge-based societies. The Infostatesindex is calculated from two partial indices, Infodensity –which includes all TIC stocks of capital and labour-and by Info-use-which measures the consumption of TICs by periods- with the aim of differentiating their degree of penetration by countries. 3. Variables related with venture capital. In the present context of innovation, increasing importance is given to the venture capital market since it is considered to be a necessary agent in the promotion of new innovatory firms. Under the heading of venture capital are included firms not quoted on the Stock Market, including those made by bodies

OECD (1995), p. 16.


administering their own capital or that of private investors and outside institutions, and/or informal investors or business agents 8 . We used in this research a variable that indicates the availability of risk capital on national level. Finally, in concluding this section it must be pointed out that this research attempted to record those indicators highlighted by the innovation systems approach and those for which regionalised information is available. Nonetheless, there are still weaknesses in statistical sources which make it impossible to include other aspects such as the cooperation, R&D Policies, scientific publications etc. 2.3.- The Factor Analysis The factorial analysis is a multivariate statistical technique which from a large group of quantitative variables enables a clearly smaller group of hypothetical or non-observable variables –called factors-. Once the analysis has been carried out, the factors obtained will have the same character and nature as the original data. The results of the factor analysis by themselves are not the principal objective of this paper. Rather our main aim is their use in follow-up studies. Once we have the factors, for each region “standardised factor values” will be assigned which will be used to elaborate the IAIF index for regional innovation capacity. In the case of the Factor Analysis the accomplishment of assumptions of normality, homoscedasticity and linearity are not required or applied less restrictive. That is, the basic assumptions implicit in the method are more conceptual than statistical in nature. Moreover the obtained factors are unrelated among each other which make it possible to use them easily in follow up studies based on econometric models. The main criteria too judge the outcome of a factor analysis is that the extracted factors are consistent and interpretable in accordance with the theoretical or conceptual framework of the study, in our case, the regional innovation system. So one of the reasons to exclude some variables is their lack of power to assure a clear unequivocal and unambiguous interpretation. If some of the factors include variables statistically related to each other, albeit conceptually totally different we could not interpret the factor and its use makes no sense. In our model this only happened in the case of variables with a very low explanatory power that also would be excluded due to the application of the statistical criteria.


On the EUROSTAT NEW CRONOS database it is called "early stage" and "expansion and replacement". N


Table 1. Structure of the factors and the IAIF Index of Regional Innovation Capabilities (1995 - 2003)
(The last column reflect the retained variability of each factor as a percentage of the initial total variability of the 30 variables and the variability of each factor as a percentage of the total retained variability) Retained variability Weight of and weight of each each factor or subindex VARIABLES variable Average annual population (thousands of inhabitants) 11.40% Number of people employed 11.11% Gross Fixed Capital formation (millions € 1995) 9.02% Gross Domestic Product (millions € 1995) 9.36% Factor 1. Gross Added Value (millions € base 1995) 9.35% 28.48% Regional productive Wages (millions € 1995) 9.32% economic environment Human resources in Sc and T (Total) 10.02% Human resources in Sc and T in knowledge-intensive 10.18% services (total) Human resources in Sc and T in high technology (total) 9.98% Human resources in Sc and T services (total) 10.27% Hi-tech patents * 19.18% Hi-tech patents ** 19.16% Factor 2. Patents * 14.19% Patents ** 13.78% 15.46% Innovating firms Firms’ expenditure on R&D (%of GDP) 12.45% Staff in R&D in firms (NP) % of employment 10.71% Staff in R&D in (EDP) % of employment. 10.53% Factor 3. GDP per worker** 34.78% 36.80% Peripherability and degree GDP per capita* 28.42% of sophistication of demand Accessibility or peripherability University expenditure on R&D (% of GDP) 23.15% Factor 4. Staff in R&D in the University (NP) % of employment. 27.77% University Staff in R&D in the University (EDP) % of employment 26.73% Number of third cycle students (‰ of population) 22.34% PA expenditure on R&D (%of GDP) 33.40% Factor 5. Staff in R&D in PAs (NP)% of employment 32.51% Public administration Staff in R&D in PAs (EDP) % of employment 34.09% Risk Capital (% of GDP) 47.90% Factor 6. Economic Freedom Index 23.27% National innovation Penetration of TICs 28.83% *With regard to each million of population; **With regard to each million of working population NP: Number of people; EDP: Equivalent to full time 8.04%




As can be observed in table 1, for the European case (183 regions of 19 EU countries and initially over 100 variables) we found six “unobservable hypothetical variables” or factors that are homogeneous in their consistency and are clearly interpretable in terms of the theory on innovation systems. (1) regional and productive environment; (2) the innovating enterprises; (3) degree peripherability and sophistication of the demand (4) University (5) Public Administration (6) National innovation environment. We consider that those six factors 9 --that are no more than a combination of a set of 30 different highly related

A short review of the factors is included in the presentation of the data in section 4.


variables and that retain 89% of the initial variability— reflect better the different components of the innovation system than each of the individual variables would have done. This methodology can be considered as a holistic approach of the empirical studies on (regional) innovation systems because of the use of a great number of variables. The results of these analyses not only can be interpreted correctly from the perspective of the evolutionary theory of innovations and technological change, though different trials showed that they can also be considered as stable and consistent. Moreover the high number of correlated variables is one of the main handicaps for the traditional econometric analysis. While the factors obtained by the model are uncorrelated with each other which implies that the factor analysis is one of the possible solutions that could prevent the problems of multicolinearity in econometric modelling. The use of factors do not only reflect better the different elements of the innovation system they also avoid, in a certain way, the problem of important irregular fluctuations in time of the values of the individual variables often based on statistical effects due to exceptional or ad hoc fluctuations like those caused by changes in the law or application norms that delay the assignment for example of subsidies or patents.

It has to be highlighted that the factor analysis presented in this paper grouped the variables without any restriction, i.e. the statistical programme classified or assigned the variables to each in groups or so called factors without previous indications or influence of the authors of this paper. This is important because, as will be seen, the variables included in each factor belong to the same component or sub-system of the overall regional innovation system. This can be considered as an important achievement because it should not be forgotten that one of the main criteria to judge the correctness of a factor analysis is, besides that the statistical requirements are fulfilled, that the factors –or hypothetical non observable variables- can be correctly interpreted from a practical point of view and fit properly within the theoretical framework of the innovation system approach. So, the variables assigned to a factor have to be somehow interrelated and reflect different aspects of the same overall concept. 3.The construction of a synthetic index for the innovation systems of the European regions

3.1.- Introduction

Once the factors have been specified we went on to quantify the extent of innovatory capacity in European regions by means of the construction of what is known as the IAIF index of regional innovation capabilities (also called IAIF Index or scoreboard). This index, calculated from the results obtained in the previous stage-factorial analysis-, establishes a ranking of regions according to the extent to which their systems are developed. It thus becomes an important practical exercise not just of the point of view of economics, but also of political and social value. In the building of the IAIF Index and its partial indexes we can distinguish between the following stages. 1. 2. 3. 4. Creation of the IAIF data base for the 206 EU-25 regions (Section 2) Identification of the factors making up the innovation systems (section 2) Calculation of the weightings or weight of the factors and variables. (Section 3) Standardisation or normalisation and calculation of partial and final indices. (section 3)


5. Presentations of the results (section 4) 3.2.Calculation of the weightings and standardisation of the variables

The relative weight of the factors, as well as the variables comprising them, has been calculated from the findings produced by the multivariate analysis. The idea is to weight the variables and the six partial indices in accordance with their real participation in the innovation systems bearing statistical criteria in mind and not in a random way or merely influenced by theoretical considerations, that is, subjectively. In the case of the partial indices, their weighting within the final index will be determined by the total variability (divided by the number of included variables) recorded by the factor in the model with regard to total variability. From the total variance explained by the model (See table 1) and the one corresponding to each factor is obtained as a percentage of the relative weight of each partial factor—within the IAIF Index. This implies that the variables and factors with more variability have a stronger influence or weight than those variables that reflect a more homogeneous distribution between regions. Regarding the variables, their weighting within each of the partial indices has been calculated from the Matrix of coefficients for calculating marks in the components. Bearing in mind that each variable is assigned to just one factor on the basis of its greater degree of correlation with it, the relative weight is calculated as a percentage from the correlations between the factor and each variable, and the sum of the correlations of the factor with all the variables. In table 1 an explanation is given of the composition of the IAIF Index of European Regional Innovation Capabilities and its subindices for the period 1995-2003. The partial index with the greatest weight in the total, namely, 28.5% corresponds to the Regional productive-economic environment, with no very notable differences existing among the weight of the variables of which it is composed. The second most important partial index is the one relating to Universities with a weight of 23.9%. This factor includes the R&D efforts of the university and their role as an education centre to generate researchers (third level students) and human capital. The variables of which it is made up have practically equal weight. The third most important factor is the “innovative firms” and here the outstanding point is that the variables relating to the patents, particularly the hi-tech one has amore weight in the subindex than the other variables of this factor. Moreover it can be said that maybe someone could expect a more important role of the subsystem of the enterprises. However its importance is also included implicitly in the first factor (number of human resources in the service sector and the total production) and the last one in which its productivity is taken into account. The index linked to the public administration has a weight of 12.9% and each of the included variables has a similar weight. In the fourth partial index, the National innovation environment, with an 11.20% weighting, the variable risk capital stands out. Finally, the last partial index, the Peripherability and degree of sophistication of demand and is made up of three variables and has an 8% weight. The importance or weight of productivity and GDP per inhabitant is somewhat greater that the indicator of peripherability. Finally, in the last stage of the construction of the index the variables were standardised in order to oscillate within established margins, and in this way become comparable. The way in which it was done is based on the use of maximum and minimum values of each year in


each variable so that the standardised results are to be found within a range of zero to a hundred, that is:

x x = x
* r, j

r, j

− xj

min Min

Max j

− xj



x x x x

* r, j

: value standardised region r, year j : value observed in the region r, year j : maximum value observed, year j : minimum value observed, year j

r, j

Max j Min j

The sum of the standardised variables thus obtained, weighted by the corresponding factor and multiplied by a hundred gives rise to the value of each of the partial indices, which will oscillate between zero and a hundred. Likewise, from the weighted sum of the IAIF Index of European regional innovation is obtained, and this will similarly vary between zero and a hundred.




When interpreting the general results from the above-mentioned method it is worthwhile taking into account that the indices measure the relative position of a region compared with the data of each year. That is, for each year we normalised the data so that the range values adopted will be between zero (minimum) and a hundred (maximum) both for the general IAIF index of regional innovation capabilities and for each of the partial indexes. In the following graphics the maximum, minimum and mean values 10 of the general and partial IAIF indexes are recorded. Moreover, Table 2.includes the name of the regions obtaining the maximum and minimum values in the case of the general index. In view of these results it can be stated that the European Union as a whole shows a very diverse panorama. The data of the IAIF index and its partial indices for each of the 183 regions are reflected in table in the annex included at the end of the paper. As is observed, the European region possessing the highest mark in the IAIF Index is the French one from Île de France (fr1). This region only achieves 63 points of the possible 100 that it could obtain. This fact, given the way the index is constructed, allows it to be stated that there is no region in the study that is European leader for each of the different elements making up the regional innovation System. Within France Île de France is leader for 4 of the 5 factors with regionalised data (do not forget that factor 6 is based on national data). In the case of the Public Administration this region is in third place (18 points behind Languedoc-Roussillon). However on European level Île de France does not lead any of the partial indexes. On the other hand, although Övre Norrland (SE) and Flevoland (NL) lead two different partial indexes, they have a very poor score on the total IAIF index (25 and 18 points respectively).
No weighted mean is calculated because the size of the region is already incorporated in the weighting of index numbers.


Secondly, there is an important dispersion among the nineteen countries which affects both the maximum and minimum values of each of them, as reflected in Graph 4.1. In this way, for example, the EU-19 average is situated in 18 points while the German region with the lowest value in the index - Mecklenberg-Vorpommern with 16 points- has a higher mark than the maximum values of countries like Hungary, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, and is just below the mark of the leading region of Greece. Moreover, the average value of the IAIF Index of the UE-19 countries such as Germany, The Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, is situated above that of the maximum value regions in countries like Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal and the five analysed East European Countries. Thirdly, the dispersion of values of the IAIF index and its partial indexes within each country is also important. This fact is accentuated in large countries like France, Germany, Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom. Four, in general terms it can be said that the ranking occupied by European regions is fairly stable. Although in general almost all regions improved their values in the ranking in comparison to the leading regions, looking at its evolution over time these changes are minor. Only a very small group showed changes of more than two points in the IAIF index and on even fewer occasions the changes are above 5 points. The regions that showed the most important changes were the leading ones. Although in this paper we do not concentrate our analysis on those changes we could highlight the case of Ireland and Greece. In the first case we saw a continuous improvement with an index of 16 points in 1995 reaching a level of 24 points in 2003. The values for Greece are low and very unstable and regions such as Ipeiros and Attiki clearly improved their index. In relation to the group of leading regions we observe only a few minor changes in their rankings. In fact, ¡the 15 leading regions in 1995 are, except for one case, still the foremost regions in 2003. To sum up, the IAIF Index reflects the existence of an important diversity in regional innovation systems, so that the inequalities between them are highly noticeable, both on the national plan and the one corresponding to the joint consideration of the countries comprising the European Union. Moreover the regional innovation capabilities seem to change very slowly and only in a few regions did we see real qualitative changes or improvement.


Table 2. Maximum and minimum values on the IAIF Index
(Between brackets the number of regions)

Hungary (7) Czech Republic (8) Slovakia (4) Latvia (1) 13,1 14,1 12,8 6,8

Közep-Magyarsország (hu10) Praha (cz01) Bratislavský Kraj (sk01) Latvia (lv)

3,7 3,1 4,0 6,8

ÉszakMagyarsország(hu31) Severozápad (cz04) Východné Slovensko (sk03) Latvia (lv)

Mean. 6,1 6,1

Poland (16) Greece (13) Portugal (5) Spain (17) Italy (20) UE-19 (182) Austria (9) Ireland (1) France (22) United Kingdom (12) Sweden( 8) Finland (6) Netherlands (12) Luxembourg (1) Germany (16) Belgium (3) Denmark (1)

13,3 17,6 14,3 25,9 30,0 63,0 35,6 22,9 63,0 34,9 36,2 37,1 42,1 31,4 56,9 36,9 35,0

Mazowieckie (pl12) Attiki( gr3) Lisboa e Vale do Tejo (pt13) Comunidad de Madrid (es3) Lombardia (it2) Île de France(fr1) Wien (at13) Ireland (ie) Île de France(fr1) London (uki) Stockholm (se01) Etelä- Suomi (f18) Noord-Brabant (nl41) Luxembourg (lu) Nordrhein-Westfalen(dea) Vlaams gewest Denmark(dk)

4,1 4,3 6,2 9,0 8,0 3,1 10,7 22,9 10,5 15,6 13,9 13,0 16,5 31,4 16,0 28,7 35,0

Opolskie (PL52) Peloponnisos (gr25) Algarve (pt15) Islas Baleares(es53) Basilicata (itf15)
Severozápad (cz04)

6,8 6,9 8,6 9,4 14,4 15,7 18,0 20,2 22,9 23,6 23,8 24,6 25,8 26,7 31,4 31,7 33,8 35,0

Burgenland (at11) Ireland (ie) Corse (fr83) Northern Ireland (ukn) Mellersta Norland (se07) Åland (fi2) Friesland (nl12) Luxembourg (lu) MecklenburgVorpommern(de8) Région Wallonne(be3) Denmark (dk)

* Maximun value of the country; ** Minimun value of the country Source: own preparation


IAIF Index of regional innovation capabilities
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% hu cz sk lv pl pt gr es it UE-19 at ie fr uk se fi nl lu de be dk

maximum 13,13 14,07 12,84 6,77% 13,29 14,29 17,63 25,93 29,96 17,90 35,63 22,88 63,02 34,82 36,16 37,10 42,10 31,43 56,38 36,92 35,01 minimum 3,69% 3,08% 4,04% 6,77% 4,12% 6,23% 5,05% 8,96% 7,96% 17,90 10,66 22,88 10,49 15,69 13,94 12,98 16,50 31,43 15,99 28,65 35,01 mean 6,11% 6,13% 6,48% 6,77% 6,93% 8,77% 8,93% 14,42 15,69 17,90 20,20 22,88 23,57 24,06 24,60 25,77 26,07 31,43 31,70 33,75 35,01





IAIF Index: Partial index 1 Regional productive economic environment
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
gr lu sk cz hu at fi pt pl se lv nl it es UE-19 fr be ie uk de dk

maximum 18,9% 3,5% minimum mean 0,4% 3,5% 3,3% 3,5%

5,3% 7,3% 12,8% 11,6% 19,2% 12,5% 19,5% 16,2% 7,9% 23,0% 45,0% 36,8% 12,5% 93,0% 36,9% 23,3% 53,3% 98,0% 40,8% 3,4% 3,1% 2,6% 4,1% 4,6% 4,7% 1,1% 0,0% 1,2% 5,1% 6,8% 6,9% 2,5% 2,1% 7,9% 7,2% 7,5% 7,9% 2,0% 0,4% 1,3% 12,5% 0,8% 8,8% 23,3% 14,3% 4,2% 40,8% 8,8% 11,4% 12,2% 12,5% 15,6% 21,2% 23,3% 30,5% 32,0% 40,8%


IAIF Index: Partial index 2 Innovative firms
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
pl lv gr pt hu sk es cz it UE-19 ie uk fr be nl at de se lu dk fi

maximum 4,59% 1,98% 11,26 6,20% 12,02 7,99% 19,38 17,75 28,84 17,05 17,59 51,13 63,09 34,17 98,00 51,88 78,88 78,94 40,43 41,28 80,77 minimum 0,23% 1,98% 0,18% 0,42% 1,64% 2,27% 1,20% 2,52% 0,18% 17,05 17,59 5,77% 1,82% 18,73 12,45 13,01 5,83% 8,91% 40,43 41,28 9,25% mean 1,68% 1,98% 2,39% 2,86% 3,85% 4,62% 8,14% 8,64% 9,63% 17,05 17,59 22,05 22,55 26,16 28,08 29,24 31,11 39,55 40,43 41,28 50,86


IAIF Index: Partial index 3 Peripherability and degree of sophistication of demand
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
lv pl hu sk cz pt gr es it UE-19 ie uk fi se at fr dk de nl be lu

maximum 2,26% 7,29% 9,89% 10,55 13,31 21,14 23,36 32,43 46,78 34,07 40,99 58,98 48,83 55,76 63,75 86,21 51,15 80,60 74,60 98,28 99,57 minimum 2,26% 1,65% 1,59% 1,17% 3,03% 10,53 9,50% 17,96 20,08 34,07 40,99 29,66 34,10 38,42 34,55 34,66 51,15 36,67 53,96 63,95 99,57 mean 2,26% 3,43% 4,25% 4,61% 6,15% 14,24 14,63 24,62 32,52 34,07 40,99 41,05 41,74 41,90 48,01 50,89 51,15 58,22 65,30 78,21 99,57


IAIF Index: Partial index 4 Universities
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
lu cz uk at pt hu it fr nl sk UE-19 de lv ie es pl gr dk be fi se

maximum 1,94% 57,88 26,44 78,92 40,44 45,09 46,28 52,97 89,39 71,39 30,79 54,61 31,87 32,71 49,08 60,95 72,81 41,32 59,70 70,29 96,47 minimum 1,94% 0,00% 11,83 0,59% 19,42 17,30 2,68% 14,69 0,17% 12,77 30,79 17,66 31,87 32,71 13,26 15,98 6,96% 41,32 33,54 2,84% 23,86 mean 1,94% 17,60 18,08 24,32 25,73 27,51 27,79 30,26 30,44 30,77 30,79 31,37 31,87 32,71 33,19 33,59 36,37 41,32 43,92 50,76 55,60


IAIF Index: Partial index 5 Public Admistration
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
at ie se pt uk be lv pl gr es it UE-19 fr hu dk lu cz sk nl fi de

maximum 28,92 7,85% 24,82 30,09 19,48 13,95 10,30 70,42 34,48 43,49 78,92 14,60 58,45 56,74 15,71 17,44 86,19 75,43 97,69 51,59 72,72 minimum 2,12% 7,85% 0,17% 2,00% 1,47% 4,00% 10,30 0,10% 4,00% 4,53% 0,26% 14,60 0,93% 2,15% 15,71 17,44 1,30% 1,71% 1,19% 9,31% 9,27% mean 6,68% 7,85% 8,04% 9,42% 9,54% 9,89% 10,30 10,40 10,53 12,05 13,32 14,60 14,91 14,96 15,71 17,44 18,58 23,27 23,45 26,72 27,55


IAIF Index: Partial index 6 National environment
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 6,32% 0%
sk pl gr cz hu it pt de UE-19 be es at fr ie lv nl dk se fi lu uk 14,13% 9,80% 11,07% 28,71% 24,22% 42,42% 39,16% 40,62% 48,13%48,20% 45,77%47,19% 49,91% 68,10% 61,86% 78,08% 71,15% 98,20% 94,53% 84,26%


4.2. Partial indices of European regions Below the main traits of the partial indices making up the IAIF Index are shown. In the following pages we comment briefly the composition of the factors (see also table 1; section 1) and the main results related to the corresponding partial IAIF index. Moreover we use these pages to make so methodological remarks that we can derive from those results. It is important to underline that the maximum and minimum value for each country of each of the partial indexes t are not always the same regions. Factor 1: Regional productive economic environment This factor -which has a weight of 28% in the final IAIF-index- contains those indicators which determine the productive economic environment of innovation. Two blocks can be identified. (1) Size and productive activity of the market: In the analysis of the different regional innovation systems market size and productive activity are distinctive elements, showing a high level of heterogeneity. A priori it seems logical to think that those regions with a greater market size and a more complex production system might have a more developed regional innovation system. This is because that permits them to diversify their innovation related activities taking advantage of the specialisation (based on labour division) and scale advantages. (2). Human resources in Science and Technology .Within the Environment of the innovation systems human resources trained in Science and Technology are also an important input. The greater amount of this type of resource will condition the capacity of the regional innovation systems themselves. An analysis of this partial index with an average score of only 17.9 points shows the existence of significant differences between and within countries. Comparing the data of the 19 analysed countries we observe in the graph on this partial index that the discrepancies are smaller in each state’s minimum mark. At the tail end of the regional environment factor we find a more heterogeneous group of regions. As is reflected in the graph the regions of the five East European countries, Portugal and Greece are relatively small. The average of those countries is below 10 points of a maximum of 100 and the maximum scores are below the EU-19 average, which stand at 18 points. Also Spain, Austria and Italy have a number of relatively small regions. When analysing the differences within the countries, a look at the Graph shows us that the most notable ones are Germany, France and the United Kingdom. This factor or hypothetical non observable variable is based on information expressed in absolute figures and stresses the economic and innovative size of region (production, overall employment and S&T working force) and has an important influence on the final IAIF index. (28%). However it should be highlighted that only a few regions have a really high score in this factor. Only sixteen of the 183 regions have a score above 30 points, another 17 have between 20 and 30 points. The size is not a strict determinant of the overall score on the IAIF index. Nine relatively small regions -with a value below 20 11 points on the factor that express the economic and innovative size- are included the top twenty of our general IAIF scoreboard. Moreover relatively large regions like Andalusia, Scotland or Yorkshire and the Humber are

Three of them with a score below ten points


somewhere in the middle of our ranking. So economic and innovative size has a positive influence on the scoreboard though a large size alone is not enough and has to be completed with the other aspects of the regional innovation systems included in the other five partial indexes. Its inclusion in the IAIF index of Regional Innovation Capabilities corresponds to the importance of market size (facilitating division of labour and specialisation) for the development of the economy in general and innovation in particular, which has been stressed as important in the literature, both theoretical and empirical12 . In fact, the empirical work of Baumert’s work (2006) (using also a factor analysis, finding very similar factors) proved that the Regional productive-economic environment-is the variable which presents the highest impact on the production of patents. Estimating a knowledge-production function –using a regression model using patents and patents per inhabitant as a dependent variable- the factor “Size” plays a very important role (Baumert (2006). This empirical fact supports our decision to include the economic and innovative size of a region in the IAIF index for innovation capabilities. The factor “economic and innovative size” incorporates somehow the concepts of critical mass and scale advantages related to R&D systems. That is to say, smaller regions or regions with small innovation systems have specific problems to assure the benefits of innovation related activities. The small number of innovating agents and the low demand of innovative products or services impede the necessary regional based labour division of the innovation process between firms, technology centres, consultancy offices, specialised providers, etc…. Therefore we could conclude that regions with larger innovation systems have a more developed and differentiated system with a supply of advanced R&D related services generating a system based on specialisation and labour division creating in this way a more dynamic system with synergies and spillovers effects due to the existence of differentiated set of mutual reinforcing agents. The specialisation of the R&D agents and the corresponding generation of advanced R&D services create specialists in specific areas that work for different clients. This kind of organisations (Consultancy offices, technology centres etc…) are the axis of the regional interaction and the collective learning process. They learn due to their work for a broad number of agents and at the same time these learning experiences are spread among other clients, accelerating in this way the technological spillovers between the agents of a region. Factor 2: Innovating firms This factor registers 21.01% of the total variability and its weight in the general IAIF index is 15.5%. It is made up of indicators that determine the resources and innovative results of firms. The included variables are the human and financial resources (the input side) and the patents as a result of innovative activities of the firms. The output side of innovating firms can be quantified through patents, since most of the requests for patenting come from the enterprises while the public research Organisations or Universities are less inclined to patent their results. In our view the centre of an innovation system are the firms. They are the ones who lead growth and structural change in which the economic development process is expressed; and they do so by taking advantage of the different sources of knowledge-among them scientific12

The importance of market size was already shown by Adam Smith in his work ·The Wealth of Nations” (1776)


and the capacity for learning residing under the heading of human capital. Therefore, science and (higher) education are important for innovation. But this is not through their immediate application in certain problems of production, but rather since they constitute the stock of knowledge which, at some particular time, sooner or later, will be used by the firms. Regarding the partial index Innovating firms, the corresponding graph shows the existing contrasts. Three states show regions with a high value in this index: the Netherlands with the Noord Brabant (98 points) -Finland, with the regions of Etelä-Suomi and Pohlois-Suomi and Germany with Baden-Württemberg –with around 80 points- are the leaders. Moreover, in the Scandinavian Countries and Luxembourg the average is relatively high in comparison with the remaining European Union countries. However the Scandinavian countries also display regions with low marks, which determines the important differences existing within them in the area of innovating firms. This fact implies that there exists a high level of concentration of the innovative activities in Europe in general and in each of its countries. Another point: the weakest performance presented here corresponds to regions of Poland, Latvia and Greece. Although the worst value is obtained by Molise (Italy) and also some other Mediterranean countries as Spain and Portugal has regions with very low scores on this partial index. In fact the average for this factor score is 17 points and no regions of Greece, Hungary, Latvia Poland, Slovakia or Portugal do reach this score. While in the case of the Czech Republic only one region reach a level just above this average. Regarding the behaviour within nations, heterogeneity seem to be higher in those containing the regions with the highest marks in the index, that is, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Germany and France. Factor 3: Peripherability and degree of sophistication of demand This factor explains 7.49% of the total variance of all 30 variables of the factor analysis and its weight in the general IAIF index is 8%. This factor includes three variables: two economic key indicators (Living standards and productivity) which relate the production of the country to its population and number of employees and also include a measure of peripherability. In the case of this partial index the differences among the countries quantified by means of the maximum, minimum and mean seems to be less significant. The state in which the region with the highest mark is to be found is Belgium- specifically Bruselles –capitale (be1)- and Luxembourg where the index value is almost 100. Also the Dutch and West German regions show high score on this partial index. On the opposite side, countries containing the regions with lower degrees of peripherability and of sophistication of demand are located in the East-European Countries followed by Portugal, Greece and Spain. In these countries the most advanced regions do not attain the European mean of 34 points. Once again, it can be well understood that significant differences exist among member states of the European Union, although in this case more moderated. Factor 4: University This factorial axis retained 10.21% of the total variance of the 30 variables included in the factor analysis and contains those indicators relating to University resources and results. The University forms part of the region’s scientific infrastructure and therefore is an important part of innovation systems. 23

In the graph related to partial index number 4 “University”, shows that the differences between countries are very heterogeneous particularly in the cases of Greece, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic or Austria.. In this case also regions of relatively rich countries show very low values and are included in the lowest positions of this factor. For example, Flevoland in the Netherlands is the European leader in the factor of “Public Administration while for the subindex “university” its position is situated on the second last place. This example shows the problem of the “nuts level” that should be used. On the one hand the large regions, as in the case of Spain do not show the specific advantages of some smaller areas where production and innovation related activities are concentrated. However the use of very low nuts level as in the Netherlands does not take into account the advantages based on the neighbour regions. Flevoland does not have a University although their inhabitants do not have real problems to study and the spillovers of universities of their neighbour regions could have very positive effects. In fact several Dutch and Austrian regions are occupying the last positions for this factor, while some regions of Slovakia and Greece maintain positions among the European leaders. Maybe in future work we should mix the data using lower nuts levels for some specific variables while for other ones we could use a higher level. Again, in the case of the Netherlands we could use data for four regions on students and university research while for other variables the data of the smaller 17 regions could be used. Factor 5: Public administration This factor, which records 9.56% of the variance and has a weight of 13% in the general IAIF index. It includes data on the resources used by the Public Administration in areas of Research and Development. As in the case of the universities the partial index Public Administration shows very significant differences between countries (see the corresponding graph). The regions with the highest marks of the nineteen European Union States are Mazowieckie (pl), Berlin (de), Bratislavský kraj (sk), Lazio (it), Praha (cz) and –as leader- Flevoland (nl). All those regions had a score within a range from 70 to 97 points, though none of the leaders of this partial index is included in the top twenty of the overall IAIF index. The rest of the regions had scores below the 60 points. Moreover 126 of the 183 regions show a value below the average score of 15 points. The unequal distribution of the variables in this factor shows that almost all countries have regions with a value of below 20 points. As in the case of the universities also in this case the selection of the NUTS level is an important problem that is difficult to analyse. Factor 6: National innovation environment This factor retained a 9.96% of the total variability and is made up of variables which represent some of the characteristics inherent to the Nation-State to which each region belongs. Note that the starting point is a group of countries with significant differences in the legal, economic and political aspects, so indicators are needed to express their heterogeneity. The different indicators comprising this partial index “national innovation environment” refer to data on national level so here we present the data by countries


The average score is 42 points and the highest score is obtained by the United Kingdom and Luxembourg (respectively 98 and 95 points) followed by the North European countries of Scandinavia (Finland, Sweden and Denmark) with scores above the 70 points while the Netherlands and Latvia have respectively 68 and 62 points. Moreover we can recognize a group with a score between 39-50 points consisting of Ireland, France, Austria, Spain Belgium and Germany and Portugal. Italy and Hungary has scores around 25 points while the rest of the countries have scores between 6 and 14 points.

5.- Some final remarks Conclusions and methodological remarks In this paper we used a new way to develop a regional innovation scoreboard. One of the main problems is the lack of data and a second problem is that the existing data are normally correlated generating a problem of colinearity. The idea persists that both when performing the factorial analysis and the regression analysis it is essential to try to work with the least possible number of variables. This is true if the idea is to obtain an estimating function. On the other hand, if the aim is to reflect to the highest possible degree the complex nature of the multiples making up the system-in this case innovation ones- the important thing is to find room in the model for the greatest possible number of significant variables, provided that there is no failure to meet the requirements of their validation criteria. As mentioned, the factor analysis does not require the traditional requirements of most of the statistical methods and requires in fact a correlation between groups of variables. It therefore allows the inclusion of a large number of variables As already mentioned, the evolutionary theory underpins the heterogeneity of the innovative performance, which has to be considered as a multidimensional activity. The literature emphasizes the difficulty and the weakness of the use of individual indicators to measure the global concept of innovation, as well as patents, R&D expenditures, percentage of sales related to new products, etc. Each of those indicators –although highly correlated- gives a different view of apparently the same subject. Therefore we argue that it is worthwhile treating the concept and the different elements of an innovation system as something which is not directly observable. In this case by means of a multivariate methodology and despite the statistical limitations always to be found in these topics, in this paper we elaborated and described a series of hypothetical variables registering the most important relationships related to technological change in “combined” indicators (called factors) that reflect the different aspects of the regional innovation systems. This technique, from a set of quantitative variables, allowed us to reduce the set of 30 existing variables to a lower set of 6 non-observable hypothetical variables, called factors, which summarise practically all the information contained in the original set. From our point of view these new synthetic variables or factors better reflect the general aspects of the regional innovation systems than could do each of the individual variables included in the factor. And therefore they are very appropriated to elaborate the IAIF index for regional innovation capabilities or innovation systems.


region Severozápad Strední Morava Észak-Magyarország Peloponnisos Opolskie Swietokrzyskie Podkarpackie Východné Slovensko Stredné Slovensko Moravskoslezsko Severovýchod Jihozápad Strední Cechy Közép-Dunántúl Nyugat-Dunántúl Dél-Dunántúl Dél-Alföld Ionia Nisia Lubuskie Warminsko-Mazurskie Podlaskie Západné Slovensko Észak-Alföld Sterea Ellada Notio Aigaio Kujawsko-Pomorskie Lubelskie Algarve Jihovýchod Anatoliki Makedonia, Thraki Dytiki Makedonia

20 The IAIF index for regional innovation capabilities 03 0,03 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,06 0,06 0,06 0,06 0,06 0,06 0,07 0,07 0,07


Voreio Aigaio Latvia Zachodniopomorskie Pomorskie Lódzkie Alentejo Thessalia Basilicata Wielkopolskie Centro (PT) Illes Balears Extremadura Cantabria Molise Calabria Slaskie Dolnoslaskie Norte Castilla-la Mancha Corse Kriti Burgenland La Rioja Ipeiros Kentriki Makedonia Dytiki Ellada Valle d'Aosta/Vallée d'Aoste Sardegna Malopolskie Principado de Asturias Región de Murcia Canarias (ES) Provincia Autonoma Bolzano-Bozen

0,07 0,07 0,07 0,07 0,07 0,07 0,08 0,08 0,08 0,08 0,09 0,09 0,09 0,09 0,09 0,09 0,09 0,09 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,12 0,12 0,12 0,12


Közép-Magyarország Aragón Åland Puglia Abruzzo Mazowieckie Bratislavský kraj Praha Galicia Marche Lisboa Mellersta Norrland Niederösterreich Castilla y León Umbria Sicilia Provincia Autonoma Trento Småland med öarna Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Comunidad Foral de Navarra Limousin Campania Liguria Norra Mellansverige North East Wales Kärnten Comunidad Valenciana Poitou-Charentes Friuli-Venezia Giulia Friesland Drenthe Brandenburg

0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,14 0,14 0,14 0,14 0,14 0,15 0,15 0,15 0,15 0,15 0,15 0,16 0,16 0,16 0,16 0,16 0,16 0,16 0,16 0,17 0,17 0,17 0,17 0,17 0,17 0,18


Pais Vasco Itä-Suomi Basse-Normandie Attiki Flevoland Oberösterreich Andalucia Bourgogne Auvergne Toscana Veneto Zeeland Scotland Salzburg Sachsen-Anhalt Haute-Normandie Yorkshire and The Humber Vorarlberg Champagne-Ardenne Languedoc-Roussillon Aquitaine Pays de la Loire Picardie East Midlands South West Tirol Steiermark Thüringen Schleswig-Holstein Saarland Franche-Comté Centre Piemonte

0,18 0,18 0,18 0,18 0,18 0,19 0,19 0,19 0,19 0,19 0,19 0,19 0,19 0,20 0,20 0,20 0,20 0,21 0,21 0,21 0,21 0,21 0,21 0,21 0,21 0,22 0,22 0,22 0,22 0,22 0,22 0,22 0,22


Emilia-Romagna West Midlands Lorraine Lazio Ireland Overijssel North West (including Merseyside) Cataluña Bretagne Sachsen Nord - Pas-de-Calais Övre Norrland Comunidad de Madrid Midi-Pyrénées Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur Alsace Gelderland Limburg (NL) Bremen Östra Mellansverige Eastern Région Wallonne Västsverige Länsi-Suomi Lombardia Noord-Holland Rheinland-Pfalz Berlin Pohjois-Suomi Luxembourg (Grand-Duché) Utrecht Zuid-Holland Groningen

0,22 0,22 0,23 0,23 0,23 0,23 0,23 0,24 0,24 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,26 0,26 0,27 0,27 0,27 0,27 0,28 0,28 0,28 0,29 0,29 0,30 0,30 0,30 0,31 0,31 0,31 0,31 0,31 0,31 0,31


Hamburg Sydsverige Rhône-Alpes South East Niedersachsen Denmark London Wien Région de Bruxelles Stockholm Vlaams Gewest Etelä-Suomi Hessen Noord-Brabant Baden-Württemberg Bayern Nordrhein-Westfalen Île de France

0,32 0,32 0,34 0,34 0,35 0,35 0,35 0,36 0,36 0,36 0,37 0,37 0,41 0,42 0,53 0,54 0,56 0,63


Selected References ARCHIBUGI, D. y COCO, A. (2005): “Measuring technological capabilities at the country level: A survey and menu for choice”; Research Policy, vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 175194DESAI, M., FUKUDA-PARR, S., JOHANSSON, C. y SAGASTI, F. (2002): “Measuring the technology achievement of nations and the capacity to participate in the network age”; Journal of Human Development, vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 95-112. BUESA, M., MARTÍNEZ PELLITERO, M., BAUMERT, TH. y HEIJS, J. (2007): “Novel Applications of Existing Econometric Instruments to Analyse Regional Innovation Systems: The Spanish Case”. En: SURIÑACH I CARALT (ed.) (2007). BUESA, M. y HEIJS. J. (coord.) (2007): Sistema regional de innovación: nuevas formas de análisis y medición; FUNCAS, Madrid. BUESA, M., HEIJS, J., MARTÍNEZ PELLITERO, M. y BAUMERT, TH. (2006): “Regional systems of innovation and the knowledge production function: the Spanish case”; Technovation, vol. 26, pp. 463-472. Doloreux, D. y Parto, S. (2004). Regional Innovation Systems: A critical synthesis. United Nations University, Institute for New Technologies, Discussion Paper Series nº 17, Agosto. COMISIÓN EUROPEA (2006): 2006 European Innovation Scoreboard: Comparative Analysis of innovation performance; European Trend Chart on Innovation. COMISIÓN EUROPEA (2003b): 2003 European Innovation Scoreboard: Technical Paper No. 3, EU Regions; European Trend Chart on Innovation. COMISIÓN EUROPEA (2005b): Methodology Report on European Innovation Scoreboard 2005; European Trend Chart on Innovation. EDQUIST, C. (2005). Systems of Innovation. Perspectives and Challenges. En Fagerberg, J. et al. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. GRILICHES, Z. (1990): “Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey”; Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 28, pp. 1661-1707. FAGERBERG, J. MOWERY, D. y NELSON, R. (eds.) (2005): The Oxford handbook of Innovation; Oxford, New York. GRUPP, H. y MOGEE, M. (2004): “Indicators for nacional science and technology policy: how robust are composite indicators?”; Research Policy, vol. 33, No. 9, pp. 13731384. MASKELL, P., BATHELT, H. Y MALMBERG, A. (2006). Building Global Knowledge Pipelines: The Role of Temporary Clusters. European Planning Studies vol.14, nº 8, 997-1013. MACKINNON, D.; CUMBERS, A. Y CHAPMAN, K. (2002). Learning, innovation and regional development: a critical appraisal of recent debates. Progress in Human Geography nº 26, 293-311. OCDE (1995): The measurement of scientific and technological activities: manual on the measurement on human resources devoted to S&T (Canberra Manual); Paris.


OCDE (2002b): The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities (Frascati Manual); Paris. SPIEKERMANN Y NEUBAUER (2002). European Accessibility and Peripherality: Concepts, Models and Indicators. Nordregio Working Paper 2002:9. Recuperable en: SURIÑACH I CARALT (ed.) (2007): Knowledge and Regional Economic Development; Edward Elgar. SMITH, K. (2005): “Measuring innovation”. En: FAGERBERG, MOWERY y NELSON (eds.) (2005). UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (2001): Human Development Report 2001. Making New Technologies Work for Human Development; Oxford University Press, New York. WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM (2001): The Global Competitiveness Report 2001-2002; Oxford, New York.


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful